• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Donald Trump 'offered Julian Assange a pardon if he denied Russia link to hack'

Cardinal said:
"When speaking with Julian Assange, I told him that if he could provide me information and evidence about who actually gave him the DNC emails, I would then call on President Trump to pardon him."

I.e. "Give me a different name other than Russians and you get a pardon."
Click to expand...


IE I will ask, I can't guarantee.
 
Jack Hays said:
That's an especially specious argument. The thread title stands as a lie.
Click to expand...

If somebody robs a convenience store twenty times, and another person accuses him of robbing yet another convenience store, I'm going to think it's probably true.

Do as you will.
 
Cardinal said:
If somebody robs a convenience store twenty times, and another person accuses him of robbing yet another convenience store, I'm going to think it's probably true.

Do as you will.
Click to expand...

Quite Trumpian of you: a claim without evidence.
 
Jack Hays said:
Quite Trumpian of you: a claim without evidence.
Click to expand...

The thread title isn't a lie. Assange's lawyer claims Rohrbacher offered the pardon at the request of the President. Rohrbacher confirms the offer, but denies the Trump connection. He could be (and likely is) lying. And it's likely he's lying because this is exactly the sort of thing Trump does with regularity.
 
Cardinal said:
The thread title isn't a lie. Assange's lawyer claims Rohrbacher offered the pardon at the request of the President. Rohrbacher confirms the offer, but denies the Trump connection. He could (and likely is) lying. And it's likely he's lying because this is exactly the sort of thing Trump does with regularity.
Click to expand...

Claim without evidence.
Assange's lawyer is desperate, and he's counting on what Lenin called "useful idiots" to be his echo chamber.
 
Jack Hays said:
Claim without evidence.
Assange's lawyer is desperate, and he's counting on what Lenin called "useful idiots" to be his echo chamber.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but because this is the sort of thing Trump does all the time, I'm inclined to believe it. If someone robs a hundred convenience stores and is accused of robbing a 101st convenience store, I'm inclined to believe it.

There is a 99.9% chance the headline will turn out to be completely true, because everything about the claim is credible.
 
Cardinal said:
Maybe, but because this is the sort of thing Trump does all the time, I'm inclined to believe it. If someone robs a hundred convenience stores and is accused of robbing a 101st convenience store, I'm inclined to believe it.

There is a 99.9% chance the headline will turn out to be completely true, because everything about the claim is credible.
Click to expand...

Claim without evidence.
 
Jack Hays said:
Then the thread title is a lie.
Click to expand...

The thread title complies with the DP rules for posting items from media sources and those rules require a verbatim use of the original item's headline.

You should also keep in mind that the main purpose of a "headline" is MARKETING and is not journalism.

PS - The original headline indicated that 'offered Julian Assange a pardon if he denied Russia link to hack' was something that someone said, and the body of the article contained “on instructions from the president, he was offering a pardon or some other way out, if Mr Assange … said Russia had nothing to do with the DNC [Democratic National Committee] leaks.” which WAS a quote of something that was alleged to have been said.

I suppose that you would have had absolutely no qualms about accepting the story if the headline had read

Reporter says that Assange's lawyer says that another lawyer says that they were present and heard Roharbach say that he had heard Donald Trump say that he would grant Mr. Assange a pardon if Mr. Assange would say that the Russians were not involved in hacking the DNC computers which Mr. Assange has absolutely no way of knowing since he didn't actually witness the hacking and
would have to be relying on what someone else told him they had been told.
​

or something like that.
 
Last edited:
TU Curmudgeon said:
The thread title complies with the DP rules for posting items from media sources and those rules require a verbatim use of the original item's headline.

You should also keep in mind that the main purpose of a "headline" is MARKETING and is not journalism.

PS - The original headline indicated that 'offered Julian Assange a pardon if he denied Russia link to hack' was something that someone said, and the body of the article contained “on instructions from the president, he was offering a pardon or some other way out, if Mr Assange … said Russia had nothing to do with the DNC [Democratic National Committee] leaks.” which WAS a quote of something that was alleged to have been said.

I suppose that you would have had absolutely no qualms about accepting the story if the headline had read

Reporter says that Assange's lawyer says that another lawyer says that they were present and heard Roharbach say that he had heard Donald Trump say that he would grant Mr. Assange a pardon if Mr. Assange would say that the Russians were not involved in hacking the DNC computers which Mr. Assange has absolutely no way of knowing since he didn't actually witness the hacking and
would have to be relying on what someone else told him they had been told.
​

or something like that.
Click to expand...

Except that Rohrbacher never claimed Trump said anything, so the title is a lie.
 
Jack Hays said:
Except that Rohrbacher never claimed Trump said anything, so the title is a lie.
Click to expand...

No, not quite. Mr. Rohrbacher SAYS that he never said that Mr. Trump made any offer.

The headline (read as "marketing") is intended to get people to purchase and read the article. The article says that Mr. Assange's lawyer says he has a statement from another lawyer who says that she was personally present and actually heard what was said and that Mr. Rohrbacher DID SAY that Mr. Trump made an offer.

BTW, I notice that you don't seem to be saying that it is a lie that

  1. Mr. Assange's lawyer says he has a statement from another lawyer who says that she was personally present and actually heard what was said and that Mr. Rohrbacher DID SAY that Mr. Trump made an offer
    *
    or
    *
  2. another lawyer says that she was personally present and actually heard what was said and that Mr. Rohrbacher DID SAY that Mr. Trump made an offer.

What you appear to have your knickers in a knot over is the fact that you don't like the way that the FACTUAL content was ADVERTISED.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
No, not quite. Mr. Rohrbacher SAYS that he never said that Mr. Trump made any offer.

The headline (read as "marketing") is intended to get people to purchase and read the article. The article says that Mr. Assange's lawyer says he has a statement from another lawyer who says that she was personally present and actually heard what was said and that Mr. Rohrbacher DID SAY that Mr. Trump made an offer.

BTW, I notice that you don't seem to be saying that it is a lie that

  1. Mr. Assange's lawyer says he has a statement from another lawyer who says that she was personally present and actually heard what was said and that Mr. Rohrbacher DID SAY that Mr. Trump made an offer
    *
    or
    *
  2. another lawyer says that she was personally present and actually heard what was said and that Mr. Rohrbacher DID SAY that Mr. Trump made an offer.

What you appear to have your knickers in a knot over is the fact that you don't like the way that the FACTUAL content was ADVERTISED.
Click to expand...

No. The lie is any claim that Rohrbacher said Trump made an offer.
 
Jack Hays said:
No. The lie is any claim that Rohrbacher said Trump made an offer.
Click to expand...

Well, since the court appears to have agreed to allow the statement to be used in evidence, we will get a chance to have that tested when the US government requires Mr. Rohrbacher to testify in rebuttal, won't we.

Of course, since Mr. Robinson's notes of the conversation would qualify under the "business records" rule (being that they would have been created contemporaneously and in the normal and every day course of business" if the US government DOES NOT call Mr. Rohrbacher to rebut them, those notes are going to be accepted as true and accurate and the court will be making its decision based on that fact.

Mind you, if there were more people than Ms. Robinson present, and if those people also testify that Mr. Rohrbacher DID indicate that the offer had the blessing of Mr. Trump, that would mean that Mr. Rohrbacher might just find himself in a bit of legal trouble (and in a court/country where Mr. Trump DOES NOT have any "power of pardon" [and in a legal system that REALLY doesn't like people committing perjury {especially not in aid of the government of a foreign power}]) after he testifies that he said no such thing. Should there be an audiotape record of Mr. Rohrbacher's exact words, that caca just might be a bit deeper than Mr. Rohrbacher is willing to step into.

Do I know that it is alleged that Mr. Rohrbacher said what it is alleged he said? Yes, I do - and so do you.

Do I know that Mr. Rohrbacher denies the allegation? Yes, I do - and so do you.

Do I KNOW that Mr. Rohrbacher DID SAY what it is alleged he said? No, I do not.

Do you KNOW that Mr. Rohrbacher DID NOT say what it is alleged he said? No, you do not.

The MOST LIKELY conclusion on those last two will come out in the British court (assuming that Mr. Rohrbacher actually testifies [and even if he doesn't]).
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Well, since the court appears to have agreed to allow the statement to be used in evidence, we will get a chance to have that tested when the US government requires Mr. Rohrbacher to testify in rebuttal, won't we.

Of course, since Mr. Robinson's notes of the conversation would qualify under the "business records" rule (being that they would have been created contemporaneously and in the normal and every day course of business" if the US government DOES NOT call Mr. Rohrbacher to rebut them, those notes are going to be accepted as true and accurate and the court will be making its decision based on that fact.

Mind you, if there were more people than Ms. Robinson present, and if those people also testify that Mr. Rohrbacher DID indicate that the offer had the blessing of Mr. Trump, that would mean that Mr. Rohrbacher might just find himself in a bit of legal trouble (and in a court/country where Mr. Trump DOES NOT have any "power of pardon" [and in a legal system that REALLY doesn't like people committing perjury {especially not in aid of the government of a foreign power}]) after he testifies that he said no such thing. Should there be an audiotape record of Mr. Rohrbacher's exact words, that caca just might be a bit deeper than Mr. Rohrbacher is willing to step into.

Do I know that it is alleged that Mr. Rohrbacher said what it is alleged he said? Yes, I do - and so do you.

Do I know that Mr. Rohrbacher denies the allegation? Yes, I do - and so do you.

Do I KNOW that Mr. Rohrbacher DID SAY what it is alleged he said? No, I do not.

Do you KNOW that Mr. Rohrbacher DID NOT say what it is alleged he said? No, you do not.

The MOST LIKELY conclusion on those last two will come out in the British court (assuming that Mr. Rohrbacher actually testifies [and even if he doesn't]).
Click to expand...

Another one for the "So what?" file.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
In short "I have made up my mind WITHOUT the facts and really don't care what the facts are going to eventually prove out to be.".

PS - I suppose that you are extremely upset with the USMC over "Top General Orders Removal of All Confederate Paraphernalia From Marine Bases".
Click to expand...

It's in the "So what?" file because it's not important.
I'm the guy who always had a photo of W.T. Sherman on his office wall, so no, the removal of Confederate paraphernalia doesn't bother me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom